[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Avidya is virodha or abhava 3 - "All types of abhAva are also bhAvarUpa only"

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste all,
There are no corrections in 'Avidya is virodha 1'; in the second
installment, one wrongly cited BSbh2.1.4; in the third installment, 2.1.14
again needs to be disregarded. So, one unguarded citation. Apologies truly,
but dismissing the remainder is disingenuous - some excellent insights,
imho.  I will be more conscientious in the future.

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 6:40 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Haha, I guess this is what happens when one places their trust in Sam
> Altman over sampradAya!
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2025, 09:56 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankar ji and Michael ji.
>>
>> 🪙 4. Śaṅkara Explicitly Denies Bhāvarūpatva of Avidyā
>>>>
>>>> This is the death blow to the opponent’s position.
>>>>
>>>> In *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.14*, Śaṅkara says:
>>>>
>>>> *"nāvidyā nāma kaścid vastusvabhāvaḥ..."*
>>>> "There is no such thing as avidyā having an essential nature
>>>> (vastu-svarūpa)."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above quote is not present anywhere in Brahmasutra. AI is known to
>>> generate fake content but you are posting here without verifying
>>> it yourself. In fact BS Bh 2.1.14 is one of the clinching Bhashyas for
>>> MulAvidyA being bIjashakti and it being non different from mAyA.  Please
>>> post your own content here and not copy paste from AI. You may use AI for
>>> your own understanding but verify everything and present your own
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>
>> This is another level of discussion really. 😃
>>
>> Recently there was a case where a tax tribunal passed order in which it
>> quoted Supreme Court decisions in support of their ruling as a binding
>> precedent. And it was later pointed out by some affected parties that those
>> decisions were never given by Supreme Court. It turned out that the
>> tribunal had relied on Chatgpt.
>>
>> I think the use of ChatGPT is welcome. But cutting-pasting the response
>> of ChatGPT in a discussion, and expecting a reply thereto, without having
>> at least verified the comment - is not welcome. To me, it seems a
>> disrespect to the hard work the members put in to write their informed
>> comments.
>>
>> It is easy to put forth the response of ChatGPT as a comment. It does not
>> require any hard work. But to write a comment with due deliberation and
>> application of mind requires not only hard work and time, but also a
>> feeling of care, love and respect the writer has towards the questioner.
>> These subtle virtues are missing if one reproduces the comment of ChatGPT.
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAAicStb_8TGVOdrnhRm89as%3DJri1brxDdAkd0GgmOR4w%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAAicStb_8TGVOdrnhRm89as%3DJri1brxDdAkd0GgmOR4w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>